Connect with us

Editorial

Usurpers

Published

on

Saturday 9th January, 2021

The SLFP is no stranger to internal disputes and crippling breakaways. Its history is full of such instances which have cost it dear electorally. Its prolonged stay in the Opposition from 1977 to 1994 was due to internecine clashes among its leaders including the members of the Bandaranaike family. Its intraparty rivalries have surfaced again.

The SLFP is in a dilemma. We thought SLPP MP and former President Maithripala Sirisena was its undisputed Chairman. But now we are told that it has two heads. Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga insists that she is the legitimate Chairperson of the party her late father founded.

Yesterday, there were two ceremonies to pay floral tributes to the statue of the founder of the SLFP, the late Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, in Colombo—one official and the other unofficial. Kumaratunga arrived early, for once, and laid flowers and left before the commencement of the official event.

The media cannot think of a better person than Kumaratunga, who never exercises control over her tongue when she goes on the offensive, to get spicy or lunu-ambul comments. Asked for her views on the direction in which the SLFP was moving, she said it had gone astray, and, therefore, the question of its direction did not arise, at all. She was still the Chairperson of the SLFP, and Sirisena had usurped her position, she insisted. Later, Sirisena attended the official ceremony, and when asked by the media for his comment, he struck a conciliatory note. He was obviously papering over the cracks. Kumaratunga’s claim cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. She may have sent a political trial balloon.

On listening to Kumaratunga’s comment, we were reminded of a statement Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella made in Parliament, the other day. He said the incumbent government was belittling the judiciary. Whether he is right or wrong, one may not know, but he seems to have forgotten the manner in which the yahapalana government, of which he, Kumaratunga and Sirisena were leaders, treated the judiciary.

In January 2015, the then President Sirisena unceremoniously removed Chief Justice Mohan Peiris to pave the way for the reinstatement of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, who had been removed from office by the Rajapaksa government in January 2013. President Sirisena decreed that the post of Chief Justice had never fallen vacant as Dr. Bandaranayake’s ‘impeachment’ was wrong, and, therefore, the appointment of Peiris was null and void ab initio. Thus, Peiris, who had functioned as the Chief Justice for two years, was simply ‘vapourised’. Only this newspaper has raised questions about the salary he drew, perks he enjoyed, decisions he made, judgments he delivered, appointment letters he signed, etc. There have been serious doubts about the legality of all these, but they have not been addressed either by the judiciary, the legislature or the executive. Not even the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has taken it up. In fact, some of its office-bearers were advisors to the yahapalana government.

If one goes by Kumaratunga’s claim at issue, Sirisena is doing what he, as the President, accused Chief Justice Peiris of—holding on to a key position unlawfully.

The current SLFP, with one person functioning as its Chairman and another one claiming to be its legitimate head— is like the Sri Lankan judiciary between January 2013 and January 2015. If Kumaratunga’s aforesaid claim is true, then the SLFP is facing a serious legal issue, which its dissidents can make use of in case the party taking disciplinary action against them; the legality of what Sirisena does as the Chairman of the SLFP is in question.

The outcome of the last presidential election and the subsequent regime change left the political enemies of the SLPP in a state of shock for months. Kumaratunga, therefore, may have chosen to maintain a low profile and stay away from the affairs of the SLFP, when it coalesced with the SLPP. But she and other rivals of Sirisena are likely to vie for dominance in the party, weakening it further and reducing Sirisena’s bargaining power in the ruling coalition. If the SLFP faces another crippling dispute, some of its politicians are likely to switch their allegiance to the SLPP come the next Provincial Council elections. This may be one of the reasons why the government was in a mighty hurry to conduct the PC polls while the second wave of COVID-19 is raging through the country.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial

Contempt then and now

Published

on

Dr. Asanga Welikala, legal academic and constitutional lawyer, has gone on record saying that while imprisonment over contempt of court is legal, it is increasingly seen as inappropriate and disproportionate. This observation has been made in the context of the jailing last week of Parliamentarian and film star Ranjan Ramanayake to four years rigorous imprisonment on contempt charges. Thanks to television, the country was able to see the actor, screaming and shouting that he had neither robbed, killed nor engaged in drug trafficking and will not apologize, being dragged into a prison vehicle to be taken away to serve his term. He was clearly playing to the cameras as he would have on a film set and put up quite a show.

Readers would remember the highly respected Prof. Carlo Fonseka, Ramanayake’s uncle, accompanying him to court every day at the early stages of the trial which began three years ago. This was before the late professor, frail even then, was physically unable to go to court. This case, as most of them do, dragged on for a long time as is common, or even inevitable, in this country. Most people know that contempt of court is a serious offence and refrain from trifling with the judicial system for fear of punishment. While the courts are not infallible, as demonstrated by higher courts sometimes overturning judgments from lower down, there is no bar on the criticism of judicial decisions. But this must be done, as the text books say, in “chaste language” without scandalizing the court.

It was decades ago that Mr. Herbert Hulugalle, then editor of the “Ceylon Daily News,” was convicted of a contempt offence by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Sir. Sydney Abrahams, then Chief Justice, who later became a Privy Councillor. On the bench with the British CJ were two Ceylonese judges, Justice Akbar and Justice Koch. A fine of thousand rupees – not chicken feed at that time – and imprisonment till the rising of court was imposed on the editor over an editorial titled “Justice on Holiday” which Hulugalle did not write. But as editor, he had to take responsibility for what appeared in his paper. The editorial was written at the instance of D.R. Wijewardene, the legendary Lake House founder. Hulugalle, himself an advocate, sat with the lawyers in the courtroom after his conviction and spent the lunch adjournment with his friend, the Registrar of the court, in the latter’s chambers. Sir Sydney, ostensibly for Hulugalle’s benefit, adjourned court for the day earlier than usual. Wijewardene, no doubt at great expense, took the case right up to the Privy Council in a vain attempt to overturn the judgment.

More recently, Editor Fred Silva, also of the “Daily News” was imprisoned for six months for a newspaper column titled “Dress Sense” that appeared in his paper. This was a comment on different requirements of different courts on how persons appearing before them should be clad – a jacket and tie or national dress as the case may be. It was said there that while one court upbraided someone wearing trousers and an open neck shirt for not appearing in what we Lankans are fond of calling a “full suit,” a witness in another court was giving evidence neatly clad in a white shirt and pair of trousers. Although Silva was convicted and served his sentence, a reporter (subsequently editor) present in the courtroom said he clearly heard Justice Jaya Pathirana telling his brother judges “let him go” over the court public address system.

It was only a few months ago that Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara, the leader of the Bodu Bala Sena, was convicted of what appeared to be a blatant act of contempt by making a fiery speech in a courtroom at Homagama where a case in which he was interested was being heard. The complainant in this matter was the judge himself. The monk was convicted on several counts preferred against him and sentenced to six years in jail. But he was pardoned by President Sirisena after serving a fraction of his sentence and subsequently ran for Parliament. Although there was a report that Ramanayake, speaking on the telephone to UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe after his conviction had said that he would seek a pardon, this was said to be “in lighter vein”. Given the hellholes that our prisons are, whether ‘One Shot’ as the MP was styled in one of his movies, will ask for a pardon remains to be seen. He will continue to be an MP for six months after which his seat will be vacated. Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, under whose Samagi Jana Balavegaya ticket Ramanayake returned to parliament for his second term, said last week that “we will stand by him;” but what that means in practical terms is not clear. Whether the actor is made of similar stuff as General (now Field Marshal) Sarath Fonseka, who steadfastly refused to seek a pardon but soldiered through a part of his prison term until he was granted an unasked pardon, is debatable. Ramanayake stands to be disqualified from standing for election for seven years if he serves four years in jail. That can end his political career.

All things are impermanent as the Buddha said. How this particular drama will pan out remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Unions bellow, Adani guffaws

Published

on

Saturday 16th January, 2021

The government has chosen to grasp the nettle after weeks of dilly-dallying and prevarication; it has admitted that there will be a joint venture between the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) and India’s Adani Group to run the East Container Terminal (ECT). According to the MoC (Memorandum of Corporation) Sri Lanka signed with India and Japan, in May 2019, on the ECT, the SLPA was to retain the ownership of the terminal and own 51% of the operating company with India and others holding the remaining shares. There is hardly any difference between this arrangement and what the present government has undertaken to do.

The yahapalana government failed to proceed with the controversial ECT deal as it was politically weak and could not square up to resistance from the powerful port unions. The situation changed last year following the election of a ‘strong’ government, which is using its two-thirds majority to bulldoze its way through.

Ironically, many of those who campaigned hard to bring the present government to power, claiming that a strong political leadership was a prerequisite for protecting the national interest and developing the country, are now protesting against the ECT deal! Some of the Buddhist monks who backed the SLPP to the hilt are condemning it for striking deals with foreigners at the expense of national assets. Their saviours have taken them for a ride—let them be asked to wake up and smell the coffee.

The JVP has launched a countrywide protest campaign, vowing to do everything in its power to torpedo the ECT deal. It should, in fact, ask for forgiveness from the people for what has befallen the ECT because it propped up the government which signed the MoC with India and Japan on this vital port facility. It may be recalled that in 2018 the JVP was instrumental in giving the yahapalana government a new lease of life on the pretext of safeguarding democracy when the latter was sacked by the then President Maithripala Sirisena. Having helped that beleaguered regime launch a successful counterattack, secure a majority in the House and remain in power, the JVP was backing it fully when the ECT deal was struck in 2019.

Only President Sirisena opposed the ECT deal during the yahapalana days; he even clashed with the then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at Cabinet meetings, pointing out that it was detrimental to the country’s interests to have foreign powers as partners to manage national assets. He also warned that the port trade unions would fight tooth and nail to scuttle the deal. Following the ill-advised handover of the Hambantota Port to China on a 99-year lease, Sirisena must have realised that the SLPA should operate the ECT without any foreign partners.

The present government claims that it cannot do away with the ECT agreement which the previous government entered into with India and Japan. If so, how come the Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, which was inked during the yahapalana administration, has been put on hold? The current administration cancelled the light rail transit agreement Sri Lanka had signed with JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency), claiming that the project was seriously flawed. But it has chosen not to act similarly anent the ECT deal. Why?

There seem to be several reasons. It may be that the government, which is considered overly pro-Chinese, is wary of scrapping the ECT agreement lest it should antagonise India. The SLPP grandees are under Indian pressure; the official announcement of the Indian investment in the ECT came close on the heels of Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s recent Sri Lanka visit. He is believed to have urged Colombo to finish the deal post-haste. The government also seems keen to curry favour with the Modi administration by having one of the latter’s cronies, Adani Group, as a partner to run the new terminal. Another reason may be that Adani Group has come under fire for unethical practices, and the Sri Lankan politicians love to do business with such companies for obvious reasons—the country’s loss becomes their gain.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Capitol blitzkrieg

Published

on

Friday 15th January, 2021

What we witnessed in the US House of Representatives, on Wednesday, was a snap impeachment. It may even be called a legislative blitzkrieg. Its outcome came as no surprise because the Democrats control the House. Ten GOP members joined forces with them to secure the passage of the article of impeachment against President Donald Trump.

The person who is supposed to be the most powerful man on earth is in an unenviable position. The outgoing US President finds himself in a hole, well and truly. Finally, a swashbuckling Trump was at the mercy of Vice President Mike Pence, who resisted the Democrats’ determined bid to have him invoke Article 25 of the US Constitution and remove Trump as the President. Had Pence yielded to pressure from the House, Trump could have been removed, but the US would have been plunged into a bigger mess.

Pence, too, has blotted his copybook to some extent due to his fence-sitting. On the election night, he, in his wisdom, endorsed Trump’s claim of having won while votes were still being counted. Thereafter, he plucked up the courage in the face of pressure from Trump, who wanted the election overturned, to carry out his constitutional duty impartially, and certified Biden’s victory at a joint congressional session, which was disrupted by a violent mob. Thereafter, he turned down a request from the Democrats to remove Trump.

Trump has become the first twice-impeached US President. Less than one week remains of his term, which ends on 20 January, when Joe Biden will be sworn in as the new President. The Democrats’ plan to have Trump removed immediately has, however, gone pear-shaped because the Senate, where the GOP has a majority, does not want to act on the article of impeachment before the inauguration of President Biden. The Senate, however, will have to act thereon under the Biden administration to be installed shortly. Thus, trouble is far from over for Trump. Not even the GOP Congresspeople and Senators supportive of him have defended his actions during the last two weeks or so.

The manner in which Trump was impeached, on Wednesday, has left a bad taste in many a mouth. The House, in its hurry to see the back of him, telescoped the impeachment process into a couple of hours! True, Trump should be held accountable for the Capitol insurrection, but investigations are still being conducted into the riot. Most of all, the principle of natural justice should have been respected.

The battle plan of the political enemies of Trump is clear; they want to disgrace and demonise him so as to neutralise him politically and, thereby, ruin his chances of remaining active in politics and running for President in 2024 a la Grover Cleveland, who won two non-consecutive terms (1885–1889 and 1893–1897).

The US polity has split down the middle, and whether it will ever heal is in doubt. Some black Congresspersons gave the impeachment an ethnic twist by declaring that Trump had to be removed because he was a white supremacist. It would have been prudent for the Democrats to base their action against Trump on what he has said and done since the election day. Speculation is rife that Trump supporters will stage protests on the day of Biden’s inauguration. A visibly shaken Trump has called upon them to act with restraint. If only he had asked them to do so, on 6 January.

Perhaps, the Congress could have taken the wind out of Trump’s sails and prevented the unfortunate incidents at Capitol Hill if it had cared to appoint an ad hoc committee to conduct an emergency audit of the results in the disputed states in response to Trump’s call. If it had done so and been able to prove his allegations wrong, that would have helped prevent Trump from letting the far-right genie out of the bottle.

The Democrats may be able to neutralise Trump politically if their legislative action against him finds favour with the Senate before or after Biden’s inauguration. But the question is whether they will be able to tame the forces that have rallied around him all these years.

Continue Reading

Trending